My claim was rejected today by RBS - next stage?

WorthyCandidate

Grateful for any assistance from people in a similar position.

Basically I was sent a letter saying that I had ticked the box applying for PPI when I applied for the card and that is that. They sent me a copy of the application form and of course the box was ticked although I certainly have no recollection of this.

They said that I had been provided with a certificate of cover again which I have utterly no recollection of.

I said in my claim that I have had a number of financial products with them but have always explicitly refused PPI so I certainly did not want it for my credit card. They seem to think I am telling lies here I suspect.

On the day I took the card out I took out mortgage with RBS and a current account. The card was added at the end of a very long meeting while the other two products were arranged. The credit card was essentially just something added to the end and very little time was spent on it. The full implications of the card was definitely never explained to me.

I guess it is simply a case of my word against their word here. I don't have a record of taking out PPI yet they have a record of PPI con artistry.

Does anyone think it is worth my while going to the Ombudsman with this?

misschicken

Yes, you can, nothing ventured nothing gained. RBS insisted they'd sent me a certificate of cover and they never did. If you didn't tick the box you didn't tick the box. If they didn't explain what it was that's also wrong. However there will be a question over why if you historically refused PPI why you let it show unquestioned on your credit cards statements month after month.

WorthyCandidate

misschicken wrote: »

Yes, you can, nothing ventured nothing gained. RBS insisted they'd sent me a certificate of cover and they never did. If you didn't tick the box you didn't tick the box. If they didn't explain what it was that's also wrong. However there will be a question over why if you historically refused PPI why you let it show unquestioned on your credit cards statements month after month.

Sorry I should have said, at the time it was explained to me that RBS cards covered you for extra warranty, goods being lost or stolen, holidays cancelled by an airline, etc. That is what I thought the extra line on my statement was all about so I never queried it. It was only when the amount increased, as my balance increased that I took any notice.

Basically it is my word against theirs.

misschicken

I say go for it then - other people may not! I had a card where PPI was literally described to me as protection if the card got stolen - card protector - rather than payment protection. If they didn't explain the product, the box was ticked without your knowledge and they never sent you documentation for the policy take it to the Ombudsman, you have nothing to lose.

WorthyCandidate

Do you know the timescale for an FOS ruling?

Not sure I can be bothered if this is going to be months on end.

dunstonh

They sent me a copy of the application form and of course the box was ticked although I certainly have no recollection of this.

What about your recollection of paying it every month?

They seem to think I am telling lies here I suspect.

The problem is that as many as half the PPI complaints being received are from try-it-on and fraudulent complainers. So, whilst they may not accuse you of such (some are really obvious - yours isnt), it does appear that they look at you as being opportunistic rather than genuine.

I guess it is simply a case of my word against their word here.

Verbal allegations are impossible to proof. Very few complaints get upheld on that basis. It usually is other things that result in an upheld decision or where there are inconsistencies on the firms side which makes them lack credibility (although the same applies the other way around too).

Does anyone think it is worth my while going to the Ombudsman with this?

The problem with banks and the FOS is both can be a bit scattergun in the way they deal with complaints. So, trying to guess the outcome can be difficult at times. Some cases are clear cut but yours is a he said/she said allegation. So, you would expect the FOS to look at the documentation and what you have said and then make a balance of probability decision based on what evidence there is. If there is nothing pointing to any wrong doing, then it should rule against you.

The FOS uphold rate has fallen to 68% from 92%. Partly as the easy backlog has been cleared and its the more borderline complaints now and partly as claims companies and more people try it on. I am not at all saying you are doing this but it does help to understand that the person dealing with your complaint is probably cynical knowing that around half the complaints they get are try-it-on and yours does look like that on paper.

WorthyCandidate

dunstonh wrote: »

What about your recollection of paying it every month?



The problem is that as many as half the PPI complaints being received are from try-it-on and fraudulent complainers. So, whilst they may not accuse you of such (some are really obvious - yours isnt), it does appear that they look at you as being opportunistic rather than genuine.



Verbal allegations are impossible to proof. Very few complaints get upheld on that basis. It usually is other things that result in an upheld decision or where there are inconsistencies on the firms side which makes them lack credibility (although the same applies the other way around too).



The problem with banks and the FOS is both can be a bit scattergun in the way they deal with complaints. So, trying to guess the outcome can be difficult at times. Some cases are clear cut but yours is a he said/she said allegation. So, you would expect the FOS to look at the documentation and what you have said and then make a balance of probability decision based on what evidence there is. If there is nothing pointing to any wrong doing, then it should rule against you.

The FOS uphold rate has fallen to 68% from 92%. Partly as the easy backlog has been cleared and its the more borderline complaints now and partly as claims companies and more people try it on. I am not at all saying you are doing this but it does help to understand that the person dealing with your complaint is probably cynical knowing that around half the complaints they get are try-it-on and yours does look like that on paper.

Fully appreciate your advice and on balance I think I will go back to RBS with the following info that I did not provide as it is consistent with and FOS case study.

In 2003 my credit limit was around £5k and I was earning over £40k per annum. My contract of employment at the time provided me with 6 months full pay during sickness and 6 months half pay thereafter if needed. My pension included death-in-service benefit and provided for full pension in the even of an ill health early retirement.

I have a professional qualification and, even these days, my employment is safe.

All of this still applies albeit I'm working elsewhere.

On balance one might ask why I would have taken this out and why my circumstances were not asked or considered in greater detail by the salesperson?